    --- Methodological Summary & Plot Explanation ---
    To identify similar rows, this script employs a standard NLP vector space model.
    First, each row's text is converted into a numerical vector using a Bag-of-Ngrams approach
    (counting both single words and two-word phrases).

    The similarity between these vectors is then calculated using Cosine Similarity.
    This metric evaluates the cosine of the angle between two vectors, effectively measuring
    how similar their content is, irrespective of the total length of the text. A score
    of 1.0 means the content is proportionally identical.

    The plot shows the number of pairs found at different similarity cutoffs.
    The "elbow" on this plot indicates a point of diminishing returns—the optimal cutoff
    that captures the most significant duplicates without including too many dissimilar pairs.

    We will proceed with an empirically chosen default threshold of 0.85. This value is
    a common baseline as it typically represents a strong textual overlap, allowing for
    minor variations (like typos or rephrasing) while still ensuring the core content is
    the same. 
    
Success! Spreadsheet 'Principal' loaded into a DataFrame.

--- Analyzing Similarity Thresholds ---

Plot generated to help choose a similarity cutoff.

--- Finding pairs with similarity >= 0.85 ---

Found 12 similar pairs.
Suggested rows to remove (duplicates): 115, 118, 159, 17, 302, 343, 354, 365, 80, 85, 87

Full report saved to 'similar_rows_report.csv'

Success! Your spreadsheet has been loaded into a DataFrame.

Success: Google Sheet loaded.

--- Clearing database for a fresh start ---
Cleared 9 old tables.

--- Creating new, complete relational schema ---
Table 'Religions' created.
Table 'JustificativaRelatoriaLookup' created.
Table 'JustificativaFormacaoLookup' created.
Table 'PapelCEUALookup' created.
Table 'FuncaoAdminLookup' created.
Table 'JustificativaMalNecessarioLookup' created.
Table 'AvaliacaoDanosBeneficiosLookup' created.
Table 'Respondents' created.
Table 'SurveyAnswers' created to hold all original columns.

--- Populating Lookup Tables ---
Populated all available lookup tables with provided meanings.

--- Populating main data tables ---

Migration complete! The database 'ceua_analysis_v3.db' is correct and ready for use.

Success: Loaded data for consistency check.

======================================================================
### DATA INTEGRITY AUDIT: SPA REPRESENTATIVE CONSISTENCY ###
======================================================================
This analysis checks for logical contradictions between Question 15
(Does an SPA representative exist?) and Question 23 (Does the SPA
representative perform reporting duties?). The table below shows the
number of respondents for each combination of answers.

    - 5 respondent(s) answered 'No, representative does not exist' to Q15, but then answered 'Yes, performs duties' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [2, 56, 229, 334, 371]
    - 2 respondent(s) answered 'Don't know' to Q15, but then answered 'Yes, performs duties' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [207, 276]
    - 1 respondent(s) answered 'Yes, representative exists' to Q15, but then answered 'No representative exists (per Q23)' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [288]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A total of 8 unique respondent(s) provided at least one logically inconsistent answer.
List of all unique inconsistent IDs: [2, 56, 207, 229, 276, 288, 334, 371]
======================================================================

Success: Loaded age data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Age Range (Translated) ---
count                         369
unique                          5
top       Between 41 and 50 years
freq                          134
Name: AgeRange, dtype: object

--- Descriptive Statistics for Age (Estimated Numeric) ---
Mean Age (estimated): 43.52
Median Age (estimated): 45.50
Standard Deviation (estimated): 9.62

--- Generating Age Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded gender data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Gender (Translated) ---
count        369
unique         3
top       Female
freq         233
Name: Gender, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
Gender
Female                  233
Male                    135
Prefer not to answer      1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Gender Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded region data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Region (Translated) ---
count           369
unique            5
top       Southeast
freq            179
Name: Region, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
Region
Southeast       179
South            73
Northeast        58
North            30
Central-West     29
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Region Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded state data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for State (Cleaned) ---
count     369
unique     24
top        SP
freq       99
Name: State, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Cleaned):
State
SP    99
MG    42
RJ    34
RS    28
PR    26
SC    18
DF    14
PA    14
BA    12
PE     9
PB     8
CE     8
SE     7
PI     7
AM     6
ES     6
MS     5
TO     5
GO     5
MA     4
MT     4
RN     3
RO     3
AC     2
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating State Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded religion data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Religion (Translated) ---
count             369
unique              7
top       Catholicism
freq              168
Name: Religion, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
Religion
Catholicism                     168
Spiritism                        61
No specific religion             56
Atheism/Agnosticism              33
Other Christians/Protestants     28
Afro-Brazilian Religions         13
Other/No answer                  10
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Religion Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded 'Vinculo' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Vinculo (Translated) ---
count     369
unique      2
top        No
freq      333
Name: Vinculo, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
Vinculo
No     333
Yes     36
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Vinculo Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded raw NGO name data.

--- Question 11. NGO Names as they appear in the database ---
                      ONG Sou Amigo - Coordenadora
                               AMAA - colaboradora
                                    Seres Viventes
                         SOS Animal - colaboradora
                                         Lar Oasis
                    Adote um Gatinho ( voluntaria)
                                          ALPA. RT
        Samb Sociedade Amor de Bicho 1a tesoureira
                                             Amada
       APAT - ASSOCIAÇÃO DE PROTEÃO ANIMAL DE TEFÉ
Associação Melhores Amigos dos Animais - Presid...
                                       Adota Patos
                                             KAOSA
                Viva Bichos, Defesa da Vida Animal
           Instituto Espaço Silvestre - Presidente
                                   ONG DEIXE VIVER
                                Refugio dos bichos
            ADA - Associação Defensora dos Animais
                                 UPAP - Voluntária
                                              GAAR
                               Membro da Diretoria
                    SOS ANIMAIS DE RUA, voluntária
                                            Amacap
                                            Sospet
pastoral de protetores/apoio técnico e atendime...
                Ong Animais da Aldeia - Voluntário
         Associação Ouropretana de Proteção Animal
                          Forum Animal, consultora
Associação Defensora dos Animais São Francisco ...
                 Instituto Flora Vida - Voluntária
                                       Desabandone
AMPARA, auxílio em atividade com animais da ong...
                           APATA, doadora de ração
                                      SOS Bichinho
Amaa. Presidente do conselho deliberativo e fis...
            Colaboradora- Santuário Anjos de Assis

Success: Loaded unified CEUA name data for active respondents.

Total number of unique CEUAs found: 232

--- Generating Top 20 Unified CEUA Name Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded raw institution name data.

--- Generating Top 20 Cleaned Institution Name Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Natureza_Inst' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Institution Nature (Translated) ---
count        369
unique         4
top       Public
freq         249
Name: InstitutionNature, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
InstitutionNature
Public          249
Private         102
Commercial       17
Not Informed      1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Institution Nature Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

Success: Loaded 'Representante_SPA' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for SPA Representative (Translated) ---
count                          369
unique                           4
top       Yes, only titular member
freq                           137
Name: SPARepresentative, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Translated):
SPARepresentative
Yes, only titular member       137
Yes, titular and substitute    120
No SPA representative           76
Don't know                      36
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating SPA Representative Distribution Plot (Translated) ---

/tmp/ipykernel_42212/4221084812.py:89: UserWarning: set_ticklabels() should only be used with a fixed number of ticks, i.e. after set_ticks() or using a FixedLocator.
  ax.set_yticklabels(wrapped_labels)

Success: Loaded 'Quant_membros_CEUA' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for CEUA Member Count ---
count                   369
unique                    5
top       Between 10 and 14
freq                    161
Name: MemberCount, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
MemberCount
Between 10 and 14    161
Between 5 and 9       88
Between 15 and 19     67
20 or more            36
Don't know            17
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating CEUA Member Count Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'No_licencas_recusadas' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Number of Licenses Refused ---
count            369
unique            13
top       Don't know
freq             135
Name: LicensesRefused, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
LicensesRefused
Don't know           135
0                     81
1                     23
Between 10 and 14     22
2                     21
3                     21
20 or more            20
4                     15
6                     14
5                     10
Between 15 and 19      4
7                      2
8                      1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Licenses Refused Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'No_consultores_adhoc' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Number of Ad-hoc Consultants Used ---
count     369
unique     14
top         0
freq      141
Name: AdHocConsultants, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
AdHocConsultants
0                    141
Don't know           116
2                     34
1                     23
20 or more            17
3                     15
5                      7
Between 10 and 14      4
8                      3
6                      2
4                      2
9                      2
Between 15 and 19      2
7                      1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Ad-hoc Consultant Use Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Freq_cursos' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Frequency of Educational Courses ---
count        369
unique         5
top       Rarely
freq         177
Name: CourseFrequency, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
CourseFrequency
Rarely        177
Frequently     94
Never          64
Constantly     18
Don't know     16
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Course Frequency Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Outros_encontros' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Frequency of Other Meetings ---
count        369
unique         5
top       Rarely
freq         187
Name: OtherMeetingsFrequency, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
OtherMeetingsFrequency
Rarely        187
Never          98
Frequently     58
Constantly     16
Don't know     10
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Other Meetings Frequency Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Metodo_decisao' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Decision-Making Method ---
count                      369
unique                      12
top       Voting and Consensus
freq                       296
Name: DecisionMethod, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
DecisionMethod
Voting and Consensus                                               296
Only Consensus                                                      44
Only Voting                                                         18
Don't know                                                           3
Votação com discussão prévia                                         1
Variavel                                                             1
O presidente                                                         1
SOU SUPLENTE                                                         1
O CEUA é novo. A primeira solicitação foi enviada nesta semana.      1
Votação, Avaliação de Projetos e Relatórios                          1
Consenso e votação                                                   1
Parecer externo e avaliação do parecer pelos membros titulares       1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Decision-Making Method Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Periodicidade_das_reunioes' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Meeting Periodicity (Brittle Clean) ---
count              369
unique               8
top       Once a month
freq               231
Name: TranslatedPeriodicity, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Brittle Clean):
TranslatedPeriodicity
Once a month             231
Every fifteen days        39
Once every two months     38
Once per semester         24
Other                     16
Don't know                13
Once a week                5
Quarterly                  3
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Meeting Periodicity Distribution Plot (Brittle Clean) ---

Success: Loaded 'SPA_assume_relatoria' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for SPA Protocol Reporting ---
count     369
unique      4
top        No
freq      121
Name: SPAReporting, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
SPAReporting
No                               121
Yes                              116
No SPA representative on CEUA     72
Don't know                        60
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating SPA Protocol Reporting Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded opinion data on SPA reporting for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Opinion on SPA Reporting ---
count     369
unique      3
top       Yes
freq      182
Name: OpinionSPAReporting, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
OpinionSPAReporting
Yes                  182
No                   127
I have no opinion     60
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Opinion on SPA Reporting Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded and joined data for Q24 and Q25.

--- Contingency Table (Counts) ---
Opinion                                    No  No Opinion  Yes
Justification                                                 
Based on equality/isonomy                   0           1   61
Brings positive contributions               0           1   35
Conditional (with training/supervision)    10          13   50
Lack of engagement from SPA                 5           4    2
No opinion / Not classifiable               7          35    7
Not the function of an SPA representative  14           2    0
Risk of partiality / Lacks competence      86           1    2
SPA is competent for the role               5           3   25

--- Generating Visualization ---

Success: Loaded 'SPA_deve_ter_formacao' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Opinion on SPA Higher Education ---
count     369
unique      3
top       Yes
freq      209
Name: SPAFormationNeeded, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
SPAFormationNeeded
Yes           209
No            128
No opinion     32
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Opinion Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded and joined justification data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Justification of SPA Higher Education ---
count                                       369
unique                                        6
top       Necessary for technical understanding
freq                                        203
Name: Justification, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
Justification
Necessary for technical understanding       203
Not necessary / Can be trained              107
No opinion / Not classifiable                21
Requirement could restrict participation     17
Relevant knowledge isn't from academia       12
To ensure objectivity / Avoid bias            9
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Justification Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded 'Papel_na_CEUA' data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for CEUA Role ---
count                    369
unique                     6
top       Professor/Lecturer
freq                     100
Name: CEUARole, dtype: object

Frequency Count:
CEUARole
Professor/Lecturer                100
Veterinarian                       95
Researcher                         67
Other                              48
Biologist                          47
Animal Protection Society Rep.     12
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating CEUA Role Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded unified academic area data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Primary Academic Area (Cleaned & Aggregated) ---
count                     369
unique                      7
top       Veterinary Medicine
freq                      134
Name: 0, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Aggregated for Plot):
0
Veterinary Medicine                               134
Biological Sciences                                82
Health Sciences                                    50
Agrarian Sciences (except Veterinary Medicine)     48
Pharmacy / Chemistry                               26
Humanities                                         18
Other                                              11
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Primary Academic Background Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded education level data for active respondents.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Education Level (Revised Categories) ---
count                 369
unique                  5
top       Doctorate (PhD)
freq                  171
Name: EducationLevel, dtype: object

Frequency Count (Revised Categories):
EducationLevel
Doctorate (PhD)                  171
Post-doctorate / Habilitation     96
Master's Degree                   66
Undergraduate Degree              33
No University Degree               3
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Education Level Distribution Plot (Revised Categories) ---

Success: Loaded data for animal use areas.

--- Frequency Count of All Mentioned Animal Use Areas (Corrected) ---
AnimalUseAreas
Basic research                   161
Teaching                         148
Applied research                 121
Agricultural research             91
I do not use animals              59
Disease diagnosis                 58
Drug testing                      47
Toxicological testing             45
Vaccines / Immunology             34
Other/NA                          33
Maintenance of microorganisms     15
Maintenance of invertebrates      15
Genetic engineering                4
Military research                  1
Cosmetic testing                   1
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot (Corrected) ---

Success: Loaded and joined data for administrative functions.

--- Frequency Count of Administrative Functions ---
AdminFunction_Translated
No administrative function    263
Coordinator                    70
Vice-Coordinator               29
Secretary                       7
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Time on CEUA.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Time on CEUA (in Years) ---
count    369.000000
mean       4.157859
std        3.562950
min        0.250000
25%        1.750000
50%        2.250000
75%        6.000000
max       22.000000
Name: TimeOnCEUA, dtype: float64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Formal Ethics Knowledge.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Formal Ethics Knowledge ---
count    369.000000
mean       3.859079
std        0.891799
min        1.000000
25%        3.000000
50%        4.000000
75%        4.000000
max        5.000000
Name: EthicsKnowledge, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
EthicsKnowledge
1      6
2     15
3     95
4    162
5     91
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Ethics Education Quality.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Ethics Education Quality ---
count    369.000000
mean       2.728997
std        1.385974
min        0.000000
25%        2.000000
50%        3.000000
75%        4.000000
max        5.000000
Name: EthicsEducationScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
EthicsEducationScale
0    14
1    67
2    84
3    92
4    64
5    48
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Animal Welfare Education Quality.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Animal Welfare Education Quality ---
count    369.000000
mean       2.531165
std        1.615055
min        0.000000
25%        1.000000
50%        3.000000
75%        4.000000
max        5.000000
Name: WelfareEducationScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
WelfareEducationScale
0    46
1    73
2    60
3    71
4    67
5    52
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for 'Disciplinas Cursadas' (Q38).

--- Frequency Counts by Course and Academic Level (Corrected) ---
Academic_Level    Doctorate  Extension Course  Master's  Specialization  \
Course                                                                    
Animal Ethics            44                86        47              19   
Animal Rights            20                71        19              19   
Animal Welfare           69               127        72              36   
Bioethics                53                74        69              29   
Ethology                 34                63        33              15   
Moral Philosophy         14                29        13               7   
Research Ethics         100                82       122              33   

Academic_Level    Undergraduate  
Course                           
Animal Ethics                64  
Animal Rights                30  
Animal Welfare              103  
Bioethics                   125  
Ethology                    110  
Moral Philosophy             73  
Research Ethics              74  

--- Generating Visualization (Corrected) ---

Success: Loaded data for Ethical Aptitude.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Ethical Aptitude ---
count    369.000000
mean       4.027100
std        0.762093
min        1.000000
25%        4.000000
50%        4.000000
75%        5.000000
max        5.000000
Name: EthicalAptitude, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
EthicalAptitude
1      3
2      7
3     63
4    200
5     96
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Animal Welfare Aptitude.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Animal Welfare Aptitude ---
count    369.000000
mean       4.073171
std        0.861344
min        0.000000
25%        4.000000
50%        4.000000
75%        5.000000
max        5.000000
Name: WelfareAptitude, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
WelfareAptitude
0      3
1      3
2      7
3     55
4    184
5    117
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Protocol Comprehension Difficulty.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Protocol Difficulty ---
count        369
unique         5
top       Rarely
freq         264
Name: ProtocolDifficulty_Translated, dtype: object

--- Frequency Count ---
ProtocolDifficulty_Translated
Rarely        264
Frequently     61
Never          31
Constantly      7
Don't Know      6
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Necessity of Animal Models.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Necessity of Animal Models ---
count    369.000000
mean       3.747967
std        1.230899
min        0.000000
25%        3.000000
50%        4.000000
75%        5.000000
max        5.000000
Name: NecessityScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
NecessityScale
0      4
1     17
2     39
3     78
4    101
5    130
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Necessity of Animals for Food.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Necessity of Animals for Food ---
count    369.000000
mean       3.598916
std        1.445232
min        0.000000
25%        3.000000
50%        4.000000
75%        5.000000
max        5.000000
Name: NecessityScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
NecessityScale
0     16
1     26
2     29
3     85
4     76
5    137
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for 'Necessary Evil' opinion.

--- Descriptive Statistics for 'Necessary Evil' Opinion ---
count     369
unique      3
top        No
freq      168
Name: Opinion_Translated, dtype: object

--- Frequency Count ---
Opinion_Translated
No            168
Yes           166
Don't Know     35
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded and joined data for 'Necessary Evil' justifications.

--- Frequency Count of Justifications ---
Justification_Translated
Disagrees that it is an evil               91
Limitations of alternatives                66
Advances in science and benefits           58
Confidence in alternative methods          41
Conditional (necessary in some cases)      33
Critique of experimentation                19
Confidence in ethics and responsibility    16
No opinion / Not classifiable              13
Highlights harm to the animal               2
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Perceived Suffering in Experiments.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Suffering Scale ---
count    369.000000
mean       2.203252
std        1.580929
min        0.000000
25%        1.000000
50%        2.000000
75%        3.000000
max        5.000000
Name: SufferingScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
SufferingScale
0    59
1    91
2    57
3    80
4    42
5    40
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded and joined data for Harm-Benefit evaluation criteria.

--- Frequency Count of Harm-Benefit Criteria ---
Criteria_Translated
Relevance and Benefits      84
Refinement (3Rs)            60
Knowledge of Evaluators     51
Quality of Research         50
Not classifiable            39
Evaluation Process          36
Ethical Principles          23
Replacement (3Rs)           13
The 3Rs (in conjunction)    11
Reduction (3Rs)              2
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for acceptable animal uses.

--- Frequency Count of Acceptable Animal Use Categories ---
AcceptableUses
Food production / Agriculture                          295
Applied research                                       289
Agricultural research                                  239
Basic research                                         239
Teaching                                               206
Toxicity testing                                       191
Regulatory testing of food products                    156
Other                                                  151
Regulatory testing of substance & material exposure    140
Zoo                                                    115
Sports                                                  59
Cosmetic & personal hygiene product testing             49
Clothing                                                35
Military research                                       28
I do not consider any use of animals acceptable         13
I have no opinion on this                                4
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Perceived Suffering Intensity.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Suffering Intensity ---
count    369.000000
mean       1.815718
std        1.199489
min        0.000000
25%        1.000000
50%        2.000000
75%        3.000000
max        5.000000
Name: SufferingIntensity, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
SufferingIntensity
0     45
1    122
2     97
3     75
4     21
5      9
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Vegan/Vegetarian status.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Vegan/Vegetarian Status ---
count     369
unique      2
top        No
freq      325
Name: IsVegan_Translated, dtype: object

--- Frequency Count ---
IsVegan_Translated
No     325
Yes     44
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Animal Role Terminology.

--- Frequency Count of Animal Role Terminology ---
Term_Translated
Participants of research    138
Subjects of research        124
Objects of research          44
Don't know                   25
Research inputs              20
Other                        18
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Comfort to Express Position.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Comfort to Express Position ---
count    369.000000
mean       4.604336
std        0.766544
min        1.000000
25%        4.000000
50%        5.000000
75%        5.000000
max        5.000000
Name: ComfortScale, dtype: float64

--- Frequency Count ---
ComfortScale
1      3
2      6
3     28
4     60
5    272
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Perceived Discrimination.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Discrimination ---
count       369
unique        5
top       Never
freq        287
Name: Frequency_Translated, dtype: object

--- Frequency Count ---
Frequency_Translated
Never         287
Rarely         56
Don't Know     14
Constantly      7
Frequently      5
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for Perceived Respect.

--- Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Respect ---
count            369
unique             5
top       Constantly
freq             289
Name: Frequency_Translated, dtype: object

--- Frequency Count ---
Frequency_Translated
Constantly    289
Frequently     60
Don't Know     11
Rarely          6
Never           3
Name: count, dtype: int64

--- Generating Distribution Plot ---

Success: Loaded data for consistency check.

======================================================================
### DATA INTEGRITY AUDIT: SPA REPRESENTATIVE CONSISTENCY ###
======================================================================
This analysis checks for logical contradictions between Question 15
(Does an SPA representative exist?) and Question 23 (Does the SPA
representative perform reporting duties?). The table below shows the
number of respondents for each combination of answers.

    - 5 respondent(s) answered 'No, representative does not exist' to Q15, but then answered 'Yes, performs duties' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [2, 56, 229, 334, 371]
    - 2 respondent(s) answered 'Don't know' to Q15, but then answered 'Yes, performs duties' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [207, 276]
    - 1 respondent(s) answered 'Yes, representative exists' to Q15, but then answered 'No representative exists (per Q23)' to Q23.
    - IDs of these respondents: [288]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A total of 8 unique respondent(s) provided at least one logically inconsistent answer.
List of all unique inconsistent IDs: [2, 56, 207, 229, 276, 288, 334, 371]
======================================================================

Success: Loaded raw data from database.
Preprocessing complete. Matrix will be built with 369 complete rows.

================================================================================
### Data Dictionary & Methodology for Correlation Matrix ###
================================================================================

--- I. Variable Definitions and Preprocessing ---

- Stance_Critical:
  Target Variable. Derived from 'Justifique...codificado(45)'. Binary. Codes
  2, 3, 9 ('Critical') mapped to 1; others mapped to 0 ('Favorable').
- Is_Vegan:
  Derived from '50. Vegano_ou_vegetariano_binario'. Binary. 'Sim' mapped to 1,
  otherwise 0.
- Is_Animal_User:
  Derived from '31. Area_em_que_usa_animais_lista'. Binary. Presence of text
  indicating animal use mapped to 1, 'não uso' or empty mapped to 0.
- NGO_Affiliation:
  Derived from '9. Vinculo'. Binary. 'Sim' mapped to 1, otherwise 0.
- Age:
  Derived from '3. Idade'. Ordinal Text. Mapped ranges 'Até 30 anos' through
  'Mais de 70 anos' to a numeric scale of 0 to 5.
- Education:
  Derived from '30. Escolaridade'. Ordinal Text. Mapped 'Graduação' through
  'Pós doutorado' to a numeric scale of 0 to 4.
- Role_Code:
  Derived from 'Papel_na_CEUA_codificado(28)'. Coded Categorical (Nominal).
  Used directly. Note: Correlation with nominal codes should be interpreted
  with caution.
- Admin_Function_Code:
  Derived from 'Funcao_administrativa_na_CEUA_codificado(32)'. Coded
  Categorical (Nominal). Used directly.
- Time_on_CEUA:
  Derived from 'tempo_de_CEUA_em_anos_avg(33,34)'. Continuous. Used directly
  after converting to numeric.
- Knowledge_Ethics:
  Derived from '35. Conhecimento_formal_em_etica_escala'. Ordinal Scale (1-5).
  Used directly.
- Aptitude_Ethics:
  Derived from '39. Aptidao_para_avaliacoes_eticas_escala'. Ordinal Scale
  (1-5). Used directly.
- Aptitude_Welfare:
  Derived from '40. Aptidao_para_avaliacoes_de_bem-estar_animal_escala'.
  Ordinal Scale (1-5). Used directly.
- Need_Animal_Models:
  Derived from '42. Necessidade_de_uso_de_modelos_animais_escala'. Ordinal
  Scale (1-5). Used directly.
- Need_Animals_Food:
  Derived from '43. Necessidade_de_uso_de_animais_na_alimentacao_escala'.
  Ordinal Scale (1-5). Used directly.
- Suffering_Implied:
  Derived from '46.
  Experimentos_cientificos_implicam_sofrimento_animal_escala'. Ordinal Scale
  (1-5). Used directly.
- Willingness_to_Speak:
  Derived from '53. Vontade_para_manifestar_posicionamento'. Mixed-Type
  Ordinal. Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- Feeling_Discriminated:
  Derived from '54. Sente-se_discriminado_nas_reunioes'. Mixed-Type Ordinal.
  Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- Opinions_Respected:
  Derived from '55. Suas_colocacoes_sao_respeitadas'. Mixed-Type Ordinal.
  Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- Resistance_to_Proposals:
  Derived from '56. Ha_resistencia_as_suas_propostas'. Mixed-Type Ordinal.
  Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- Peers_Same_Concern:
  Derived from '57. Demais_membros_atribuem_o_mesmo_nivel_de_preocupacao'.
  Mixed-Type Ordinal. Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- Users_Minimize_Suffering:
  Derived from '62. Membros_que_pesquisam...minimizam_o_sofrimento...'. Mixed-
  Type Ordinal. Processed to a numeric scale 0-3.
- CEUA_Uses_3Rs:
  Derived from '63. O_quanto_a_CEUA_se_baseia_no_principio_dos_3Rs_escala'.
  Ordinal Scale (1-5). Used directly.

--- II. Methodology ---

1. Data Selection: 369 complete rows from active respondents (Ativo=1) were used for this analysis.

2. Correlation Method: Spearman's Rank Correlation (ρ) was computed for all pairs of variables. This non-parametric method was chosen as it is suitable for measuring monotonic relationships between ordinal variables, which constitute the majority of the data, without assuming linearity.

3. Handling Missing Data: After initial processing, any remaining missing values (NaNs), primarily from 'Não sei dizer' responses or conversion errors, were imputed using the median of their respective columns. This strategy preserves the full sample size but may introduce a conservative bias by slightly reducing variance.

4. Visualization: The resulting correlation matrix is displayed as a heatmap. A diverging colormap ('vlag') centered at zero is used to clearly distinguish positive (red) from negative (blue) associations. The upper triangle is masked to reduce redundancy.
================================================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

--- Contingency Table (Observed Frequencies) ---
OpinionNecessaryEvil     Não  Não sei dizer  Sim
StanceOnExperimentation                         
Non-user                  29              8   25
User                     139             27  141

==================================================
### CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS ###
==================================================

[1] HYPOTHESIS:
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO association between using animals in work and
the opinion on animal experimentation being a 'necessary evil'.
H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): Whether an individual uses animals in their work is
associated with their opinion on animal experimentation being a 'necessary
evil'.

[2] P-VALUE:
The calculated p-value is: 0.5211

[3] CONCLUSION:
Since the p-value (0.5211) is greater than our significance level (0.05), we FAIL TO REJECT the null hypothesis.
This means we do not have sufficient evidence from our data to conclude that
there is an association between the two variables.

[4] EFFECT SIZE:
Cramer's V: 0.0594
Cramer's V measures the strength of the association (0=none, 1=perfect). For
this test (df=2), a value around 0.1 is small, 0.3 is medium, and 0.5 is large.
==================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.
Data Cleaning: Retained 234 of 369 respondents with complete data.

======================================================================
### MANN-WHITNEY U TEST: SPA PRESENCE VS. AD-HOC USE ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether the frequency of using ad-hoc
consultants differs between CEUAs with an SPA representative and those
without. The Mann-Whitney U test, a non-parametric method, was chosen
to compare the distributions of an ordinal variable between these two
independent groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀: The distributions of ad-hoc consultant usage are IDENTICAL for both groups.
H₁: The distributions of ad-hoc consultant usage are DIFFERENT for the two groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Median Ad-Hoc Use (SPA Rep. Exists): 0.00 (n=176)
  Median Ad-Hoc Use (No SPA Rep.):    1.00 (n=58)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Statistical Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mann-Whitney U statistic: 4368.5
  P-value: 0.0709
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Analytical Conclusion
======================================================================
The p-value (0.0709) is not less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we FAIL to reject the Null Hypothesis. We do not have
sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that a difference exists
between the two groups.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

--- Contingency Table (Observed Frequencies) ---
This table shows the number of respondents in each categorized stance.
JustificationBucket      Critical  Favorable
StanceOnExperimentation                     
Non-user                       21         37
User                           41        257

--- Generating Visualization: Grouped Bar Chart ---

==================================================
### CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS ###
==================================================

[1] HYPOTHESIS:
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO association between using animals in work and
their justification stance on animal experimentation.
H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): Whether an individual uses animals in their work is
associated with their justification stance (Favorable vs. Critical) on animal
experimentation.

[2] P-VALUE:
The calculated p-value is: 0.0001

[3] CONCLUSION:
Since the p-value (0.0001) is less than our significance level (0.05), we REJECT the null hypothesis.
This indicates a statistically significant association between a person's status
as an animal user and their justification stance.

[4] EFFECT SIZE:
Cramer's V: 0.2086
Cramer's V measures the strength of the association (from 0 to 1). Typical
interpretations for this test's degrees of freedom (df=1) are: ~0.1 (small),
~0.3 (medium), ~0.5 (large effect).
==================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

--- Contingency Table (Observed Frequencies) ---
JustificationBucket  Critical  Favorable
EthicsKnowledge                         
1                           1          5
2                           1         14
3                          19         72
4                          27        126
5                          14         77

==================================================
### CHI-SQUARE TEST RESULTS ###
==================================================

[1] HYPOTHESIS:
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO association between ethics knowledge and
justification stance.
H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): A respondent's self-assessed formal knowledge in
ethics is associated with their justification stance (Favorable vs. Critical) on
animal experimentation.

[2] P-VALUE:
The calculated p-value is: 0.6930

[3] CONCLUSION:
Since the p-value (0.6930) is greater than our significance level (0.05), we FAIL TO REJECT the null hypothesis.
This means we do not have sufficient evidence from our data to conclude that
there is an association between the two variables.

[4] EFFECT SIZE:
Cramer's V: 0.0792
Cramer's V measures the strength of the association (from 0 to 1). For this
test's degrees of freedom (df=4), interpretations can be guided by: ~0.1
(small), ~0.3 (medium), ~0.5 (large effect).
==================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

Sample sizes:
Vegan/Vegetarian (n=44)
Non-Vegan/Vegetarian (n=325)

/tmp/ipykernel_8740/3014332350.py:70: UserWarning: set_ticklabels() should only be used with a fixed number of ticks, i.e. after set_ticks() or using a FixedLocator.
  ax.set_xticklabels(['Non-Vegan/Vegetarian', 'Vegan/Vegetarian'])

============================================================
### MANN-WHITNEY U TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
============================================================
The Mann-Whitney U test is a non-parametric test used to
determine if there is a significant difference between two
independent groups on an ordinal or continuous variable. We
chose this test because our 'SufferingScale' data is ordinal
(ranked) and not assumed to be normally distributed, making
a standard t-test inappropriate.
------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
------------------------------------------------------------
We formally state our research question as a testable pair
of hypotheses. The Null Hypothesis (H₀) is the default
assumption of no difference, while the Alternative
Hypothesis (H₁) is what we are testing for.

  H₀: The distributions of perceived suffering scores are IDENTICAL for both groups.
  H₁: The distributions of perceived suffering scores are DIFFERENT for the two groups.
------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics: A First Look at the Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Before testing our hypothesis, we examine the central
tendency of each group. Since the data is ordinal, the
**median** (the middle value) is the most appropriate
measure. It tells us the score at which 50% of the group
responded at or above.

  Median Score (Vegan/Vegetarian Group): 3.00
  Median Score (Non-Vegan/Vegetarian Group): 2.00

Observation: The median for the vegan/vegetarian group is
higher. The next step is to determine if this observed
difference is statistically significant or likely due to
random chance.
------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics: Testing for Significance
------------------------------------------------------------
This is the core of the test. The **p-value** represents the
probability of observing a difference this large (or larger)
between our groups purely by chance, assuming H₀ is true. A
small p-value (typically < 0.05) suggests the observed
difference is real.

  Mann-Whitney U statistic: 9811.0
  Calculated p-value: 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size: Measuring the Magnitude of the Difference
------------------------------------------------------------
A small p-value tells us the difference is significant, but
not how *large* it is. For this, we calculate the **Rank-
Biserial Correlation (r)**. This value ranges from -1 to 1
and measures the strength of the difference between the
groups.

  Rank-Biserial Correlation (r): 0.3722

Interpretation Guide: |0.1| is a small effect, |0.3| is a
medium effect, and |0.5| is a large effect. The positive
sign indicates the first group (Vegan/Vegetarian) tends to
have higher scores.
------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0000) is less than our significance level of
0.05. Therefore, we **reject the Null Hypothesis**. There is
strong statistical evidence to conclude that a significant
difference exists in the distribution of perceived suffering
scores between vegans/vegetarians and non-vegetarians, with
the vegan/vegetarian group tending to report higher scores.
The effect size (r=0.37) indicates that the magnitude of
this difference is medium to large.
============================================================

Success: Loaded data for animal use and suffering perception.

--- Descriptive Statistics by Group ---
             count      mean       std  min  25%  50%  75%  max
UsesAnimals                                                    
Non-User      54.0  3.074074  1.502851  0.0  2.0  3.0  4.0  5.0
User         315.0  2.053968  1.547633  0.0  1.0  2.0  3.0  5.0

--- Generating Visualization ---

--- Chi-Squared Test of Independence ---
Contingency Table:
SufferingScale   0   1   2   3   4   5
UsesAnimals                           
Non-User         3   6  10  12  11  12
User            56  85  47  68  31  28

Chi-Squared Statistic (χ²): 21.4611
P-value: 0.0007
Degrees of Freedom: 5

--- Interpretation of Results ---
Significance level (α): 0.05
Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no association between a respondent's status as an animal user and their level of agreement that scientific experiments imply suffering.

Conclusion: Since the p-value (0.0007) is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis.
There is a statistically significant association between using animals professionally and the perception of animal suffering in experiments.

Assumption Check: All expected cell frequencies are 5 or greater. The test is considered reliable.

======================================================================
### SPEARMAN'S RANK CORRELATION: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
Spearman's rank correlation (rho, ρ) is a non-parametric test that
measures the strength and direction of a monotonic relationship
between two ranked or ordinal variables. Unlike Pearson's correlation,
it does not assume a linear relationship, making it ideal here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO monotonic association between a member's
time on a CEUA and their self-perceived ethical aptitude.

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There IS a monotonic association between the
two variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Inferential Statistics & Effect Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlation coefficient (rho) is itself a measure of effect size.

  Spearman's rho (ρ): 0.1122
  Calculated p-value: 0.0312

Interpretation Guide for |ρ|:
  • 0.00 - 0.30: Weak correlation
  • 0.30 - 0.60: Moderate correlation
  • 0.60 - 1.00: Strong correlation
The sign of ρ indicates the direction (positive or negative).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0312) is less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we REJECT the Null Hypothesis. There is a statistically
significant, although weak, positive monotonic relationship between
time served on a CEUA and self-perceived ethical aptitude. As
experience increases, aptitude tends to increase as well.
======================================================================

======================================================================
### VALIDITY CHECKS FOR SPEARMAN CORRELATION ###
======================================================================

[1] Sensitivity Analysis (excluding TimeOnCEUA > 15 years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Original sample size: 369
Filtered sample size: 364
Original rho: 0.1122 (p-value: 0.0312)
Filtered rho: 0.1030 (p-value: 0.0496)
 Conclusion: Compare the original and filtered results. If they are
very similar, our initial conclusion is robust. If they differ
significantly, the outliers had a strong influence.


[2] Bootstrapping (1000 iterations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
95% Confidence Interval for rho: [0.0008, 0.2101]
 Conclusion: A confidence interval tells us the range where the true
correlation likely lies. If this interval does not contain 0, we can
be confident that the relationship is statistically significant and
stable.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for ethics education and ethical aptitude.
Data Cleaning: Retained 369 of 369 respondents with complete data.

--- Generating Visualization ---

======================================================================
### SPEARMAN'S RANK CORRELATION: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates the relationship between two ordinal
variables: the perceived quality of a respondent's ethics education
and their self-assessed aptitude for conducting ethical evaluations.
Spearman's rank correlation (rho) is the appropriate non-parametric
test to measure the strength and direction of a monotonic relationship
between such ranked data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO monotonic correlation between the variables.
 H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There IS a monotonic correlation between the variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Statistical Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Spearman's Correlation Coefficient (rho): 0.3517
  P-value: 0.0000
  Sample Size (n): 369
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Interpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0000) is less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we REJECT the Null Hypothesis. The observed correlation is
statistically significant and is unlikely to be due to random chance.

The correlation coefficient (rho = 0.35) indicates a weak positive
monotonic relationship. This means that as the perceived quality of
ethics education increases, the self-assessed aptitude for ethical
evaluations also tends to increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Final Conclusion
======================================================================
There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between
how well respondents feel they were taught ethics and how prepared
they feel to make ethical evaluations. Those who report a more
sufficient educational background in ethics also tend to report a
higher aptitude for the task. The strength of this relationship is
weak.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for animal welfare education and aptitude.
Data Cleaning: Retained 369 of 369 respondents with complete data.

--- Generating Visualization 1: Jittered Scatterplot ---

======================================================================
### SPEARMAN'S RANK CORRELATION: ANIMAL WELFARE REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates the relationship between the perceived
quality of a respondent's animal welfare education and their self-
assessed aptitude for conducting animal welfare evaluations.
Spearman's rank correlation (rho) is the appropriate test for this
pair of ordinal variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO monotonic correlation between the variables.
 H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There IS a monotonic correlation between the variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Statistical Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Spearman's Correlation Coefficient (rho): 0.2406
  P-value: 0.0000
  Sample Size (n): 369
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Interpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0000) is less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we REJECT the Null Hypothesis. The observed correlation is
statistically significant.

The correlation coefficient (rho = 0.24) indicates a weak positive
monotonic relationship. This means that as the perceived quality of
animal welfare education increases, the self-assessed aptitude for
animal welfare evaluations also tends to increase.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Final Conclusion
======================================================================
There is a statistically significant, positive relationship between
how well respondents feel they were taught animal welfare and how
prepared they feel to make such evaluations. The strength of this
relationship is weak.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for ethics knowledge and protocol difficulty.
Data Cleaning: Retained 363 of 369 respondents with complete data.

--- Generating Visualization 1: Jittered Scatterplot ---

--- Generating Visualization 2: Bar Plot of Median Knowledge ---

======================================================================
### SPEARMAN'S RANK CORRELATION: KNOWLEDGE VS. DIFFICULTY ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates the relationship between a respondent's
self-assessed formal knowledge in ethics and the frequency with which
they report difficulty understanding research protocols. Spearman's
rank correlation (rho) is used to measure the monotonic relationship
between these two ordinal variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO monotonic correlation between the variables.
 H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There IS a monotonic correlation between the variables.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Statistical Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Spearman's Correlation Coefficient (rho): -0.2305
  P-value: 0.0000
  Sample Size (n): 363
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Interpretation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0000) is less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we REJECT the Null Hypothesis. The observed correlation is
statistically significant.

The correlation coefficient (rho = -0.23) indicates a weak negative
monotonic relationship. This means that as self-assessed formal ethics
knowledge increases, the reported frequency of difficulty in
understanding protocols tends to decrease.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Final Conclusion
======================================================================
There is a statistically significant, negative relationship between a
respondent's self-assessed formal knowledge in ethics and the
frequency of difficulty they report in understanding protocols. The
strength of this relationship is weak. In practical terms, individuals
who rate their ethics knowledge higher tend to report facing
difficulties in protocol comprehension less often.
======================================================================

======================================================================
### KRUSKAL-WALLIS H-TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
The Kruskal-Wallis H-Test is a non-parametric method used to determine
if there are statistically significant differences between two or more
independent groups on an ordinal or continuous dependent variable. It
is the non-parametric equivalent of a one-way ANOVA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): The distributions of the perceived 3Rs application
scores are IDENTICAL for all professional roles on the CEUA.

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): The distribution of perceived 3Rs application
scores is DIFFERENT for at least one professional role.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics: A First Look at the Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The median score for each group provides a measure of central tendency:
Role
Animal Protection Society Rep.    4.0
Faculty/Lecturer                  4.0
Representative (Other Areas)      4.0
Not Specified                     4.0
Veterinarian                      4.0
Ad-hoc Consultant                 5.0
Biologist                         5.0
Researcher                        5.0

Observation: There appears to be some variation in the median scores
across roles. The test will determine if these differences are
statistically significant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics: Testing for Significance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Kruskal-Wallis H-statistic: 7.3747
  Calculated p-value: 0.3909
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size: Measuring the Magnitude of the Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Epsilon-squared (ε²) estimates the proportion of variance in the
scores that is explained by the different roles. A common guide for
interpretation is: ~0.01 (small), ~0.08 (medium), and ~0.26 (large
effect).

  Epsilon-squared (ε²): 0.0010
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.3909) is greater than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we FAIL TO REJECT the Null Hypothesis. We do not have
sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that a difference in
perception exists across the different roles based on this data.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

======================================================================
### KRUSKAL-WALLIS H-TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether the perceived necessity of using
animals for food differs across religious groups. Since we are
comparing an ordinal dependent variable (Necessity_Food scale) across
multiple independent nominal groups (Religion), the Kruskal-Wallis
H-Test is the appropriate non-parametric method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): The distributions of the 'necessity of animals for food' scores are IDENTICAL for all religious groups.

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): The distribution of scores is DIFFERENT for at least one religious group.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics: A First Look at the Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The median score for each group provides a measure of central tendency:
Religion
Other                  3.0
Spiritism              3.0
No Religion            3.0
Agnosticism/Atheism    4.0
Catholicism            4.0
Evangelical            4.0
Afro-Brazilian         5.0
Name: Necessity_Food, dtype: float64

Observation: There appears to be some variation in the median scores across groups. The test will determine if these differences are statistically significant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics: Testing for Significance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kruskal-Wallis H-Test (Omnibus Test):
  H-statistic: 12.9912
  P-value: 0.0432

[4] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0432) is less than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we REJECT the Null Hypothesis. There is statistically
significant evidence to conclude that the perceived necessity of using
animals for food differs across religious groups.

Post-Hoc Analysis (Dunn's Test with Bonferroni Correction):
The following table shows the p-values for pairwise comparisons:
                     Afro-Brazilian  Agnosticism/Atheism  Catholicism  \
Afro-Brazilian               1.0000                  1.0       1.0000   
Agnosticism/Atheism          1.0000                  1.0       1.0000   
Catholicism                  1.0000                  1.0       1.0000   
Evangelical                  1.0000                  1.0       1.0000   
No Religion                  0.7927                  1.0       1.0000   
Other                        1.0000                  1.0       1.0000   
Spiritism                    0.3023                  1.0       0.1524   

                     Evangelical  No Religion  Other  Spiritism  
Afro-Brazilian               1.0       0.7927    1.0     0.3023  
Agnosticism/Atheism          1.0       1.0000    1.0     1.0000  
Catholicism                  1.0       1.0000    1.0     0.1524  
Evangelical                  1.0       1.0000    1.0     1.0000  
No Religion                  1.0       1.0000    1.0     1.0000  
Other                        1.0       1.0000    1.0     1.0000  
Spiritism                    1.0       1.0000    1.0     1.0000  
======================================================================

--- Generating Visualization ---

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

======================================================================
### MANN-WHITNEY U TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether the perception of being respected
in CEUA meetings differs between vegan/vegetarian members and non-
vegan/vegetarian members. We are comparing an ordinal dependent
variable (Perceived Respect scale) between two independent nominal
groups (Vegan Status). The Mann-Whitney U test is the correct non-
parametric method for this comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): The distributions of perceived respect scores are IDENTICAL for both groups.

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): The distributions of perceived respect scores are DIFFERENT for the two groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics: A First Look at the Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The median score for each group provides a measure of central tendency:
  Median Score (Vegan/Vegetarian Group): 3.00
  Median Score (Non-Vegan/Vegetarian Group): 3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics: Testing for Significance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mann-Whitney U statistic: 6091.5
  Calculated p-value: 0.1186
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size: Measuring the Magnitude of the Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rank-Biserial Correlation (r): 0.1006

Interpretation Guide: |r| ≈ 0.1 (small), |r| ≈ 0.3 (medium), |r| ≈ 0.5
(large effect).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.1186) is greater than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we FAIL TO REJECT the Null Hypothesis. We do not have
sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that a difference in
perceived respect exists between the two groups based on this data.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded data for analysis.

======================================================================
### MANN-WHITNEY U TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether CEUAs with representatives from
Animal Protection Societies (SPA) refuse a different number of
licenses compared to CEUAs without such representation. We are
comparing a numerical (count) dependent variable (Refused Licenses)
between two independent nominal groups (SPA Presence). Given the
expected non-normal, skewed nature of count data, the Mann-Whitney U
test is the appropriate non-parametric method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): The distributions of the number of refused licenses are IDENTICAL for both groups (with and without SPA representation).

H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): The distributions of the number of refused licenses are DIFFERENT for the two groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics: A First Look at the Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The median is the most robust measure of central tendency for skewed data:
  Median Refused Licenses (SPA Present): 1.00
  Median Refused Licenses (SPA Not Present): 1.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics: Testing for Significance
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mann-Whitney U statistic: 3089.0
  Calculated p-value: 0.5488
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size: Measuring the Magnitude of the Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rank-Biserial Correlation (r): -0.0575

Interpretation Guide: |r| ≈ 0.1 (small), |r| ≈ 0.3 (medium), |r| ≈ 0.5
(large effect).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.5488) is greater than our significance level of 0.05.
Therefore, we FAIL TO REJECT the Null Hypothesis. We do not have
sufficient statistical evidence to conclude that a difference in the
number of refused licenses exists between the two groups based on this
data.
======================================================================

Success: Loaded raw data for analysis using a plain SQL query.

--- Data Preparation Summary ---
Initial respondents loaded                                   369
Respondents from target institutions (Public, Private, Commercial) 368
...of whom answered 'Não sei dizer' for refused licenses     (-135)
Final respondents in analysis (with valid numerical data)    233
----------------------------------------------------------------------

======================================================================
### KRUSKAL-WALLIS H-TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether the number of refused licenses
differs across Public, Private, and Commercial institutions. The
dependent variable ('Refused Licenses') contained mixed data types
(numbers, text ranges, and non-numeric answers). A custom parser was
created to convert this data into a single numerical scale. Text
ranges (e.g., 'Entre 10 e 14') were converted to their midpoint (e.g.,
12), and lower-bound responses (e.g., '20 ou mais') were converted to
their lower bound (e.g., 20). Respondents who answered 'Não sei dizer'
were excluded from this specific statistical test. As we are comparing
a non-normally distributed numerical variable across three independent
groups, the Kruskal-Wallis H-test is the appropriate omnibus method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀: The distributions of refused licenses are IDENTICAL for all institution types.
H₁: The distribution of refused licenses is DIFFERENT for at least one institution type.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Median Refused Licenses by Institution Type:
Institution_Nature
Commercial    0.0
Public        2.0
Private       3.0
Name: Refused_Licenses_Count, dtype: float64
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics (Omnibus Test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Kruskal-Wallis H-statistic: 12.8063
  P-value: 0.0017
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Epsilon-squared (ε²): 0.0552
Interpretation: ε² estimates the proportion of variance in the ranks
of the scores explained by group membership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0017) is less than 0.05. We REJECT the Null Hypothesis.
There is significant evidence that a difference exists among Public,
Private, and Commercial institutions regarding the number of refused
licenses.

Performing Dunn's Post-Hoc Test...
Pairwise p-values (Bonferroni corrected):
            Commercial  Private  Public
Commercial      1.0000   0.0012  0.0025
Private         0.0012   1.0000  1.0000
Public          0.0025   1.0000  1.0000

Significant differences were found between the following groups:
  - Commercial and Private (p=0.0012)
  - Commercial and Public (p=0.0025)
======================================================================

--- Generating Visualization ---

Success: Loaded raw data for analysis using a plain SQL query.

--- Data Preparation Summary ---
Initial respondents loaded                                   369
Respondents from target institutions (Public, Private, Commercial) 368
...of whom answered 'Não sei dizer' for SPA presence         (-36)
Final respondents in analysis (with complete data)           332
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--- Contingency Table (Observed Frequencies) ---
SPA_Present         No  Yes
Institution_Nature         
Commercial           4   11
Private             22   72
Public              50  173

======================================================================
### CHI-SQUARED TEST OF INDEPENDENCE: ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether an association exists between the
nature of an institution (Public, Private, Commercial) and the
presence of an Animal Protection Society (SPA) representative. Since
both variables are categorical (nominal), the Chi-Squared (χ²) test of
independence is the correct statistical method to determine if the
observed proportions differ significantly from what would be expected
by chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀ (Null Hypothesis): There is NO association between institution type and SPA presence.
H₁ (Alternative Hypothesis): There IS an association between institution type and SPA presence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Statistical Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Chi-Squared Statistic (χ²): 0.1630
  P-value: 0.9217
  Degrees of Freedom: 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Effect Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Cramér's V: 0.0222
Interpretation: Cramér's V measures the strength of association. 0
indicates no association, 1 indicates a perfect association. A common
guide is: ~0.1 (small), ~0.3 (medium), ~0.5 (large effect).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.9217) is greater than 0.05. We FAIL TO REJECT the Null
Hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to conclude an association
exists between the variables.
======================================================================

--- Generating Visualization ---

Success: Loaded and joined data for analysis using a plain SQL query.

--- Data Preparation Summary ---
Initial respondents loaded                                   369
Respondents with a valid, codified role                      369
...of whom answered 'Não sei dizer' for perceived respect    (-11)
Final respondents in analysis (with complete data)           358
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Role Frequencies for Analysis:
Role
Faculty/Lecturer                97
Veterinarian                    91
Researcher                      67
Biologist                       45
Other                           28
Representative (Other Areas)    15
SPA Representative              12
Ad-hoc Consultant                3
Name: count, dtype: int64
----------------------------------------------------------------------

======================================================================
### KRUSKAL-WALLIS H-TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates whether the perception of being respected
differs based on a member's pre-codified professional role. The roles
were retrieved by joining the survey data with the 'PapelCEUALookup'
table for maximum accuracy. The ordinal 'Perceived Respect' scale was
numerically encoded (0=Never to 3=Constantly). The Kruskal-Wallis
H-test is the appropriate method for this comparison of an ordinal
variable across multiple nominal groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀: The distributions of perceived respect scores are IDENTICAL for all professional roles.
H₁: The distribution of scores is DIFFERENT for at least one professional role.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Median Perceived Respect Score by Codified Role:
Role
Ad-hoc Consultant               3.0
Biologist                       3.0
Faculty/Lecturer                3.0
Other                           3.0
Representative (Other Areas)    3.0
Researcher                      3.0
SPA Representative              3.0
Veterinarian                    3.0
Name: Perceived_Respect_Score, dtype: float64
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics (Omnibus Test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Kruskal-Wallis H-statistic: 10.4753
  P-value: 0.1632
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Epsilon-squared (ε²): 0.0293
Interpretation: ε² estimates the proportion of variance in the ranks
of the scores explained by group membership.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.1632) is greater than 0.05. We FAIL TO REJECT the Null
Hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to conclude a difference in
perception exists across the groups.
======================================================================

--- Generating Visualization ---

Success: Loaded raw data for analysis using a plain SQL query.

--- Data Preparation Summary ---
Initial respondents loaded                                   369
...of whom answered 'Não sei dizer' for refused licenses     (-135)
Final respondents in analysis (with complete data)           234
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--- Final Group Composition for Analysis ---
RejectionStatus
One or More Rejections    153
Zero Rejections            81
Name: count, dtype: int64
----------------------------------------------------------------------

======================================================================
### MANN-WHITNEY U TEST: DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT ###
======================================================================
This analysis investigates if there is a difference in CEUA experience
(in years) between members who have never had a proposal rejected and
those who have had one or more rejected. The complex 'Refused
Licenses' data was parsed and binned into two groups ('Zero
Rejections', 'One or More Rejections'). The Mann-Whitney U test is the
appropriate non-parametric method to compare the distributions of a
continuous variable between two independent groups, as it does not
assume normality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Stating the Hypotheses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
H₀: The distributions of experience time are IDENTICAL for both groups.
H₁: The distributions of experience time are DIFFERENT for the two groups.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] Descriptive Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Median is a robust measure of central tendency for potentially skewed data:
  Median Time on CEUA (Zero Rejections): 2.25 years
  Median Time on CEUA (One or More Rejections): 3.50 years
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[3] Inferential Statistics
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mann-Whitney U statistic: 4213.5
  Calculated p-value: 0.0000
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] Effect Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Rank-Biserial Correlation (r): 0.3200
Interpretation: |r| measures the effect size, with ~0.1 (small), ~0.3
(medium), ~0.5 (large).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[5] Analytical Conclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The p-value (0.0000) is less than 0.05. We REJECT the Null Hypothesis.
There is statistically significant evidence that a difference exists
in the distribution of experience time between the two groups.
======================================================================

--- Generating Visualization ---

	Cod.	Ativo	3. Idade	4. Genero	5. Regiao	6. Estado	7. Cidade	8. Religiao	Religiao_codificado(8)	9. Vinculo	...	55. Suas_colocacoes_sao_respeitadas	56. Ha_resistencia_as_suas_propostas	57. Demais_membros_atribuem_o_mesmo_nivel_de_preocupacao	58. Sente-se_estressado_nas_reunioes	59. Receio_de_aceitar_ou_rejeitar_protocolo	60. Membros_tem_receio_de_rejeitar_protocolos	61. Ao_avaliar_projeto_de_membro_ele_deve_se_ausentar	62. Membros_que_pesquisam_com_modelos_animais_minimizam_o_sofrimento_deles	63. O_quanto_a_CEUA_se_baseia_no_principio_dos_3Rs_escala	64. Comentario_sobre_CEUAs
0	1	TRUE	Entre 31 e 40 anos	Masculino	Sul	RS	Santa Maria	Catolicismo	2	Não	...	Constantemente	Raramente	Constantemente	Nunca	Nunca	Nunca	Sim	Nunca	5
1	2	TRUE	Entre 31 e 40 anos	Feminino	Sul	SC	Curitibanos	Não tenho religião	5	Não	...	Constantemente	Nunca	Constantemente	Raramente	Nunca	Raramente	Sim	Raramente	4
2	3	TRUE	Entre 51 e 60 anos	Feminino	Sul	RS	Cerro Largo	Evangélica	3	Não	...	Frequentemente	Nunca	Frequentemente	Nunca	Nunca	Raramente	Sim	Raramente	4
3	4	TRUE	Entre 41 e 50 anos	Feminino	Nordeste	SE	Aracaju	Não tenho religião	5	Não	...	Constantemente	Raramente	Frequentemente	Frequentemente	Raramente	Nunca	Sim	Frequentemente	3	Percepo que as CEUAs ainda formalizam o uso d...
4	5	TRUE	Entre 61 e 70 anos	Feminino	Centro-oeste	DF	Brasília	Espiritismo	4	Não	...	Constantemente	Raramente	Frequentemente	Nunca	Nunca	Nunca	Sim	Raramente	4
...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...	...
376	377	TRUE	Entre 31 e 40 anos	Feminino	Sul	PR	Realeza	Catolicismo	2	Sim	...	Constantemente	Nunca	Frequentemente	Raramente	Nunca	Raramente	Sim	Raramente	4
377	378	TRUE	Entre 51 e 60 anos	Feminino	Sudeste	MG	Uberaba	Espiritismo	4	Sim	...	Frequentemente	Raramente	Frequentemente	Raramente	Nunca	Raramente	Sim	Frequentemente	3	Sinto-me gratificada por participar de uma CEU...
378	379	TRUE	Entre 41 e 50 anos	Feminino	Norte	PA	Belém	Cristã protestante	3	Não	...	Constantemente	Nunca	Constantemente	Nunca	Nunca	Nunca	Sim	Constantemente	5
379	380	TRUE	Entre 31 e 40 anos	Prefiro não responder	Sudeste	SP	São Paulo	Catolicismo	2	Não	...	Frequentemente	Não sei dizer	Frequentemente	Raramente	Frequentemente	Raramente	Sim	Raramente	4	Acho a existência delas algo importante, mas a...
380											...

Statistical Analysis of CEUA Survey¶

Readme¶

Sumary¶

1. Installing external libraries needed¶

1.1 Importing common libraries for analysis¶

2. Loading data from GDrive¶

2.1 Loading data from cleaned up spreadsheet after the Qualitative Analysis¶

2.2 Showing some lines of the dataset¶

2.3 Converting the set of spreadsheets into a relational database for table creation¶

3. Univariate Analysis¶

NGO Affiliations of Respondents

3. Correlations¶

3.1 Correlation Matrix¶

#	NGO Name
1	Ada - Associação Defensora Dos Animais
2	Adota Patos
3	Adote Um Gatinho
4	Alpa
5	Amaa
6	Amacap
7	Amada
8	Ampara
9	Apat - Associação De Proteão Animal De Tefé
10	Apata
11	Associação Defensora Dos Animais São Francisco De Assis (Adasfa)
12	Associação Melhores Amigos Dos Animais
13	Associação Ouropretana De Proteção Animal
14	Desabandone
15	Forum Animal
16	Gaar
17	Instituto Espaço Silvestre
18	Instituto Flora Vida
19	Kaosa
20	Lar Oasis
21	Ong Animais Da Aldeia
22	Ong Sou Amigo
23	Pastoral De Protetores
24	Refugio Dos Bichos
25	Samb Sociedade Amor De Bicho
26	Santuário Anjos De Assis
27	Seres Viventes
28	Sos Animais De Rua
29	Sos Animal
30	Sos Bichinho
31	Sospet
32	Upap
33	Viva Bichos